General
I’m making a 18" x 10’ shelf switcher of the PRR in 1961 (a recent change). I’m mainly looking for something that can be built with Atlas turnouts, crossings, and flextrack. Main interest is in operation complex enough that I won’t have worked through every possible switch combination in two days. Control will be through two operators at most, usually one. I’d like to have interchange tracks, a freight house, team track, and end ramp track, along with some industries. (3 to 5?) A main or branch line running through would be nice for scenic interest, otherwise scenery is not that high on my list but I do want to flesh it out with terrain and structures to make it as realistic as possible. Traffic will be 100% freight.
Layout A
P&LE lead is at lower left, PRR lead at lower right, interchange yard in lower center. I’m thinking the freight station stuff would be at the top right, with other industries along top edge and left end center. Concerns: Too much “yard”, runaround tracks do not have long enough leads to be useful.
Layout B
Interchange at lower right, shared P&LE/PRR branch trackage is lowermost run. Freight station stuff at upper right or upper left. Short diagonal siding is end ramp track. Concerns: Ramp track/ramp track lead badly placed, connections to either station area cumbersome.
Layout C
Interchange at upper left or lower right., station at left center/bottom. Branch line straight across at center. Possible girder bridge on upper left leg of crossing if creek bed can be made to follow arcing track at upper center. Concerns: Branch line will be fouled by switching, but for what amounts to an interchange lead, I don’t think this will be an issue.
I guess I’m looking for any obvious "that’ll never wo
Kurk, you know what you want and you have the space identified. I think you have it in plan C. I’ve read about one other layout where the operator had a branch/main coming through a small town and it also served as the lead for the switcher to serve local industries. That operator used time table ops and simply made sure the branch was clear at certain times - adds to the challenge. I do not understand the purpose of the track in C at top center; the curved portion and the TO - the ramp track ?
Operations fun for one - note what Byron has to say about ording vs. sequencing. You have potential for both but your personal desire may be to maximize one over the other. http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/id33.html
Probably your best bet is to put the track down, connected but not permanent and experiment a little until you have it the way you want. I did this “virtually” using XtrkCad s/w. I was able to make adjustments to my plan (passing sidings, yard lead etc) before building anything. Even this much planning will invariably end up with changes as we go - part of the fun.
The three trackplans look, at first glance, like they might be fun to operate. Yet, lacking any plan for structure placement, it’s difficult to judge what you are attempting to do. Given the depth of the layout (18"), verses the amount of trackage crammed into that space, unless the industries being served are little more than propped up cardboard flats, I can’t see the three designs presenting a very believable final appearance. The maximum structure depth available between tracks appears to be no more than about 3-inches, less the width of any loading docks. Unless you plan for most cars to be off-loaded inside buildings (somewhat uncommon in most real world situations), the layout is going to look rather surrealistic and two dimensional.
While our hobby is largely to-each-his-own when it comes to layout design, I think many first timers design shelf layouts that are severely compressed, Time Saver-like, switching puzzles. I feel that it is really more appropriate and just as satisfying to attempt to represent a more realistic, generally less congested but just as much fun to operate, trackplan for urban trackage arrangements/situations then to just cram in as much trackage as possible.
I see your point CNJ, and had thoughts along those same lines. In Model Railroad Planning 2006 there is an article by Linda Sand on shelf switcher servicing a paper mill that I think is close to what you had in mind. I liked it, but had two issues: First, I couldn’t think of a equivalent industry for this area (western PA) that would receive and ship multiple (5+) car types - except maybe a steel plant, which just seemed far too big to represent plausibly in something this size. Secondly, with only the one industry I thought I would get bored too quickly.
Can I ask you then how you maintain operating interest with a sparser layout? Absent a real situation to model, what do you think would be a good number of sidings and/or car spots to maintain interest on a layout this size? Can you recommend changes to any of my plans?
I will look at what I have as well with an eye toward what you said.
Well Tom, I’m not sure yet. . . The ramp track would be near the freight house, I’m thinking, so this would be an industry.
I figured on doing that somewhere along the line.
I started something today that has the yard and station as the core elements. I will see where that goes plus think again about the sparser arrangements CNJ mentioned. My biggest fear in all this is that I get it all set up, purchase rolling stock, and complete the structures, then run it three times and get bored with it. A not uncommon fear, I’m guessing.
Whew! That’s a lot of track and I’m not sure that they much resemble what a real railroad might build in those situations. The switchbacks with the short leads will be pretty tedious after a little while. The runaround in “C” is also really short relatively speaking, which might prove to be annoying after a short time. “A” looks a little more feasible, but I think that there are still some issues.
Many successful shelf swithcing layotus are built aorund the idea of an adequately long runaround linking some industry tracks and yard tracks. Interchanges with other railroads are also good. From my website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/gallery/id23.html
This is slightly larger than your space, but could translate
See also my design for a small N scale shelf layout based on the Alameda Belt Line in Model Railroad Planning 2005
These are all similar, but with some unique characteristics reflective of the prototype. It’s a formula that works well and has since at least:
You might want to take a step back and think about how traffic will flow from one section of the layout to another both physically and logically. I’m not sure it’s quite as smooth as you’d like in these drafts so far.
As was noted, operating interest does not just come from mathematical multpliers of possible routes, although that may seem like a good goal at the outset. The issues real railroads faced and the solutions they chose can be even more rewarding and engaging over the long term.
Looking at your references, it looks like the “hourglass” shape seems to work: Two yards (or one yard, one siding complex) connected by a throat. I was looking at “Switchman’s Nightmare” today, thinking how I could cut and stretch it to 10 feet long. What do you think is more valuable, a longer runaround, longer yards, or longer sidings?
The “physically” is there, I think, and the “logically” was basically that there are cars in the interchange tracks and some at industries. The interchange cars need to go to their spots and the outbound cars need to go to the interchange. That’s really about all a railroad without a mainline can do, I reckon. What you are saying, I think, is that there needs to be some second-order rationale/motivation as well, like keeping to a schedule. Am I getting it?
A good point to ponder. That’s probably where I’m the weakest in my prep. However, something like, "They couldn’t afford a high horsepower diesel s
Both CNJ831 and Byron make excellent points. It appears you have two concerns.
You want to model something from western PA but have not found any industry that would fit in your space. If this is truely your desire, then more research is in order.
You don’t want dust to collect on it two days after building it.
I had a similar dilema. My first layout (only a little over a year ago, so I am still relatively new to this) was a N scale plan from a book (4x5 feet). I treated this as my experiment to see what moved me and what did not. In the end, I realized I did not like the lack of operations, switching etc. While it looked cute (my wife’s words) It had no realism to me. Just run trains around and through some switches. There were some structures etc. but again, it did not represent any place to me.
So, I made a list of wants. Then, I did some exursions in my area to locate the prototype I wanted to emulate. Lot’s of picture taking and Google Earth was a big help.
Once I had an idea I then drew up some plans (as you’ve done) and submitted here for inputs (also as you’ve done). Lot’s of modifications got me eventually to revision S. Research on the net on the RR I was trying to emulate led to further revisions (type of loco’s, rolling stock, era etc.)
However, as CNJ831 points out, each has to be satisfied with their own design. You are the one that will be running it days, months and hopefully years later. What really sold me on my plan and when I laid down that first dollar was when I was able to simulate the flow of trains on the proposed layout.
My suggestion is to a) Download some software and setup the plan as you see. There are a few for free such as Atlas RTS (Right Track Software) @ http://www.atlasrr.com/ and XtrkCad @ http://www.sillub.com/ (be sure to read about the free registration part)
If one thinks about the way a real railroad works, those three should usually be roughly in balance. If the sidings are long but the runaround is short, the switcher will need to make several repetitive movements to get cars in and out of a single siding. Gets tedious after a short while. At least for me.
Right, that’s an element. One of the links I inlcuded earlier was for the small N scale modular layout of the brewery and associated yard. This layout is operated as if the brewery has two shifts and certain cars must be delivered (and removed) between each shift. The cars taken away must be sorted into “eastbounds” and “westbounds” – etc., etc.
The idea is to use the external factors as a reason to move cars, rather than just shuffling them from one spot to the next based on random factors liek the tunr of a card or the roll of a die.
[quote]
QUOTE: A good point to ponder. That’s probably where I’m the weakest in my prep. However, something like, “They couldn’t afford a high horsepower diesel so they had to double the hill using a switcher on every train . . .” doesn’t sound
OK, I took the “Switchman’s Nightmare” and drew it in LHW’s original form. (As you noted, it’s closer to seven feet than six.) That’s the middle layout. The upper one is my attempt at expanding it to 18 x 120. I kept the sidings, yard, and runaround pretty much the same, just increased the distance between the two operational halves and put in an additional branch. I don’t quite like flow between the left and right though. . . Seems kinda cumbersome to take cars from the interchange to the freight house and industries. Maybe I should run the lower right track off the edge and move the ramp to the upper right, sliding the industry there to the left? That keeps the switchback siding, which I know you abhor. Lemme ask then, how do you think it works or could be improved in LHW’s original “Nightmare”?
I really was thinking about that before, maybe I just didn’t express it. My plan was/is that the cars would come into interchange in more or less random order but in line with the “needs” of the model industries. Just putting any car willy-nilly and moving them between industry spots does just sound like a puzzle, and a puzzle I could work with little cardboard markers for about $2k less than what a model RR would cost. . .
I am working on the research stuff. Maybe one day I’ll model the Marginal Branch of the PRR that ran through Beaver Falls PA and connected with the P&LE. That’ll take some time though.
I have RTS but wasn’t happy with the connection problems it had. I ended up making track templates in AutoCAD and laying things out that way.
I like your idea of designating one section as interchange and adding some sceneic elements.
But the top drawing in your sketches might not be as much fun to run as the original (in my opinion) because the runaround is so much shorter than the spurs, leads, and yard tracks. Pulling six cars out of a yard track and needing to runaround them one at a time would probably become tedious.
As I mentioned in the earlier post, I think it’s more fun to have all the elements roughly in balance in terms of length. In fact, this is already a slight weakness in Westcott’s original plan, but I think he was interested in adding a little puzzle value in the slightly shorter runaround.
And I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean to recommend the “Switchman’s Nightmare” as the be-all and end-all of switching layouts, just as another example of puting runaround, yard, leads, and industry tracks together for a satisfying operating layout.
By the way, Westcott’s version fits in 6 feet as drawn in the 101 Track Plans book, but that may be with handlaid turnouts and not commercial turnouts. Sometimes trimming commercial turnouts a bit helps them fit in tighter places … I did this in a couple of spots with the Hoboken Shore design referenced earlier.
One other suggestion I should have made earlier … if your limitation is primarily space and not money, you might consider builidng with a track system like Kato’s Unitrack. That would allow you to try out different configurations and change it later i
The bottom two are still based on Wescott’s Switchman’s Nightmare. Since yesterday I dumped the new branch, lengthed the interchange, added a siding off the branch line, and stretched the runaround. With my little template of 50’ cars, I figure that the interchange can hold 12 cars, the freight depot tracks 7, the branch tail 3, the short siding 1, and the switchback siding 6 for a total of 17 siding spots when full. No way I would have more than 9 though. Even then, I would probably only use about 6 cars at a time so as to leave room for MTs and off-spots. The runaround can handle at least 4 cars, maybe 5. (Plus 1 for the parallelogram RA vs the triangle one.) In my neophyte mind this seems pretty balanced. The switchback siding is still there but I made it more to suit two or three industries on the long leg. The short leg will either be empty or a parking spot for the switcher. The scenery would be pretty much as before with the freight depot, industries, and creek running from the left and out the bottom. The short siding off the branch would have the industry in the V. (I always intended to have scenery, BTW.)
[quote]
QUOTE: And I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean to recommend the “Switchman’s Nightmare” as the be-all and end-all of switching layouts, just as another example of puting runaround, yard, leads, and industry tracks together for a sa
I use 3rd PlanIt and i’ve done a few designs with Atlas C83 that seemed to fit when the clients built them. I’ve seen a number of designs done on general-purpose CAD systems that were using templates that were just a little off – and of course this adds up in tight spaces.
I have to admit, though, that most of those errrors were in the other direction – the general-purpose CAD users are usually too optimistic about what will fit.
I’m not sure … one way to check (if you’ve not doen so already) might be to print out a section of two or three interconnected turnouts 1:1 from AutoCAD and check the print out against the same configuration of the physical turnouts.
I used the dimensions for Atlas from an old Kalmbach book. I bought a #4 and #6 turnout plus a 25-deg crossing and they matched the overall length numbers, and that seems to be governing in most plans w.r.t. fitting. I haven’t checked the offset - this would affect the C-T-C spacing of crossovers and ladders - but I did notice that I don’t get the same numbers for a given tangent spacer as Atlas lists in their books. On the other hand, as I’ve mentioned before, Atlas also thinks you can make a triangle with angles of 12.5, 20, and 150 degrees. . .
You know, I’ve thought of printing out 1:1 templates two or three times but always got distracted. . . I’ll have to try that tomorrow.
Kurt - A lot of the ongoing interest in a small layout’s operation can come from your own creativity. I don’t recall you indicating the era you intend to model and you say you haven’t decided on your industries but here’s an example.
Don’t just think in terms of what your industries take in as raw material, or ship out as finished product. Also consider what it takes to keep that industry running. In the steam era, many industries needed regular deliveries of coal hoppers to fire their boilers, regardless of what the actually produced. Today that might mean an occasional 10,000 gal tank car being spotted for heating oil. Think about waste products.
I haven’t looked at your pictures (my dial-up commection is too slow and I’m too impatient), but here’s some thoughts anyway:
I have a 2’x6’ Timesaver-based layout. I put three spurs in each direction. One is labeled an interchange track; the other five are an industry. I am going to get about 50 cars total and cycle them in/out in groups of 3-5. This will provide variety in consists. I have many (too many) possible industry names listed from my research, so if I get tired of hauling boxcars to the Broom Factory, I can make that spur something else. (No buildings on site yet, just a Post-It note next to the track.)
Even with only 5 businesses, I have not gotten bored yet. Try to find ways to make a few cars cycle between on-layout businesses before leaving while other cars come and go swiftly. Pick some industries for variety - a coal seller, say - while others have a common theme - food industries and a grocer’s warehouse - to unite them. I need lots of reefers and a few hoppers and a few tank cars.
If you have some personal favorite old building, try to represent it - although I cannot drink (tummyache!), I want an Old Crown brewery, maybe in the background.
Even a short lead, properly placed, can be a neat tool. I modified my runaround so the interchange turnout was in between and a carlength away from both of the runaround turnouts. This allows me to drop single cars for later movement while I deal with something else in the meanwhile. My lead tracks are three cars long (with the engine taking up one car length), so I can spot a single car and still work on the lead if I am careful.
How many cars are you going to bring in at a time? A one-car lead will be maddening if you come in with a dozen cars; with three cars it’s just a bit more work than expected. Figure this into your turnout placement.
Do not spaghetti-ize your layout. It will be more work than fun. Leave yourself enough space to actually play with the train
My plan was/is that the cars would come into interchange in more or less random order but in line with the “needs” of the model industries. Just putting any car willy-nilly and moving them between industry spots does just sound like a puzzle, and a puzzle I could work with little cardboard markers for about $2k less than what a model RR would cost. . .
